The public outcry following Mr. Ford's pardon has been even more appalling than the act itself. While agree that his move was preemptive and potentially dangerous to our system of justice, the indignation must be examined in its myopia.

One of the most loathsome features of the Nixon Administration was its vindictiveness toward its adversaries. In the May issue of Harper's, Arthur M. Schlesinger wrote of the apparent disregard of the Nixon Administration for the American political notion of “limited liability in which the opposition must always be permitted to live to fight another day.”

Was it the greatest legacy then of the Nixon Administration that he left the nation, bereft of mercy? Had he been impeached, criminal charges may or may not have followed. Mr. Nixon has been forced from a position of great trust and power. Are we so callous and disillusioned that we can no longer be satisfied without the sight of blood and brutality? Must we always now assume that some sort of collusion exists ‘unless broken bodies’ are paraded before us?

I would hope that Mr. Ford's act of courage might be a public example of his repudiation of the vicious selfrighteousness and apparent amorality of his predecessor. When an institution such as the Presidency has suffered from such severe debilitation, it nearly defies imagination to propose remedies. When we are presented with the image of a warm and human act, we condemn it. Perhaps we might consider our own standards of mercy, as we might desire or dispense it, and put the logic of the’ computers in abeyance. We might at least examine our nearhysteria...

I would also propose that we reexamine the notion that we have aided and abetted Mr. Nixon's misdeeds. What secret contempt was behind the epithet “silent majority"? As the various conspirators are eventually pardoned or trials are aborted, we might learn to be more cautious and less willing to accept glib phrases and become more acutely aware of the historical facts.

Nixon's misdeeds? Their repetition was as sure an evil omen as our lack of compassion is now. I would hope that we would be a bit less sanctimonious and probe our own reactions and outcries.

JEFFREY KULICK

Chicago, Sept. 11, 1974

To Hear the Nixon Case

To the Editor:

The American people must now contemplate, in anguish, bitterness and shame, the incalculably tragic consequences for the rule of law and equal justice in our society conjured up by the President's pardon of Richard Nixon.

Since the will of the Congress to impeach and try Mr. Nixon was frustrated ‘by his resignation; since the role of the court system has been aborted by the pardon, and since that outrageously arbitrary act has left the resolution of the case in virtual !into and has thus plunged large segments of the American people into despair and cynicism, something must be attempted to retrieve the situation.

I propose the creation of a Citizens Tribunal to hear the full case against Richard Nixon. This would be a responsible and high‐minded panel of distinguished Americans, perhaps a score of eminent men and women’ from various walks of life who would sit together for as long as necessary to sift and evaluate the enormous amount of factual material.

This would be a symbolic intellectual and political proceeding, not a legal one, but it would have high moral standing. It would have the practical educational value of focusing in one place and in an organized fashion the vast and confusing welter of information. It would have the psychological value of somehow providing an emotional catharsis for the American people, whose natural need for a decently fitting climax to this tragedy has been frustrated. It would, finally, possess the historical virtue of enabling representative Americans to render judgment on the evidence.

MOSHE DECTER

New York, Sept. 10, 1974

The Proper Health Bill

To the Editor:

We quite disagree with your Aug. 23 editorial “Walkout on Health” and rather agree with what you term the “all or nothing” approach of organized labor.

The passage of any of the inadequate bills now pending would significantly change neither the financing nor the accessibility of health‐and medical‐care facilities and manpower but might lead to inappropriate complacency about the problems and prevent real grappling with the issue for years to come. Overhaul is needed, not more patchwork.

Legislation is needed which deals not only with the financing but also with the organization and distribution of health‐care services. The only bill that even approaches such a reorganization is the Health Security Bill, formerly known. as the Kennedy‐Gritfiths Bill, and even that bill is not enough.

The House Ways and Means Committee is correct in not pushing through an inadequate bill.

There is one simple step to take in the fight against inflation: a tax Credit to corporations provided they do not raise prices.

This action would provide business with capital, halt the escalation of prices and force the Federal Government to “tighten its belt.”

SHIRLEY LAVINE

New York, Sept. 5, 1974

Of Shrimps and Sharks

To the Editor:

Your ‘report that Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishermen earn so little (thirty cents a pound) that they must rely on Federal food stamps suggests to me that the time may have come to scrap our system of distribution,

Where is that invisible hand of Adam Smith and the economists which, propelled by the forces of supply and demand, serves constantly to protect the best interests of producers and consumers?

In our houiehold, we would have shrimp ‘once a week if we could afford it, but shrimp costs more than any form of meat and more than any seafood except lobster, so we can enjoy it only on special occasions. Meanwhile, the shrimp gatherer is unable to support his family on what the limitlessly avaricious middlemen are willing to grant him from what they extract from us consumers.

Perhaps producer‐user cooperatives bypassing the sharks who stand between those who create and those who consume might be the answer.

The mortgage situation has become so acute that it is almost impossible to borrow sufficient funds from a bank toward the purchase of a new or old home. Thus, both buyer and seller are unable to acquire or sell a house.

There are many owners of homes who have existing assumable mortgages at very low interest rates but not of sufficient size to permit buyers to enter into a contract unless‐they have a large amount of cash to invest above the mortgage as it stands.

I suggest that the owners pay off these mortgages, on condition that the banks then will grant a mortgage of at least double the amount received by the bank. This arrangement will be profitable for the bank, for instead of receiving for the next ten or fifteen years the low rate of interest at which the mortgage originally was financed, the lender, will be able to earn almost twice as much, based on existing interest rates. Also, since the owner will be providing the bank with 50 per cent of the amount of the loan, new funds will become available for lend ing purposes. IRVING SHAPIRO Woodmere, N.Y., Aug. 30, 1974

Slighted WNYC

To the Editor:

Your Sept. ‘3 editorial “The Music Fades” was entirely laudable in supporting the effort to save WNCN for classical music but equally deplorable in slighting another fine music station.

You say, “Only one station—WQXR — would remain devoted chiefly to classical music.” New York City's own stations, WNYC and WNYC‐FM, devote approximately the same proportion of their air time to classical music as does WQXR. Moreover, WQXR shuts down at 1 A.M., whereas WNYCFM continues to supply top‐quality music, free of ,commercials and rambling commentary, all through the night and those darkest hours before dawn when such music is a boon to those of us with offbeat working hours or insom nia. GILBERT CANT New York, Sept. 3, 1974

Toward a Power Crisis

To the Editor:

Over the past few years I have been increasingly aware of a phenomenon that has developed in New York City and has disturbed and perplexed me.

This situation involves the delivery of power to the metropolitan area, mainly through the facilities of Con solidated Edison, which have been strained literally to the breaking point, as witness the foibles and failures of Big Alice in recent times. This is fact Number One.

Fact Number Two is the ongoing and continuous construction of new build, ings, which require a greater and greater supply of power. The twin trade towers in lower Manhattan visibly attest to this,

Fact Number Three, which is even more confusing, is that new and en larged facilities for the delivery of power to the city are still mainly at the drawing‐board stage, with the exception of linking up to some electric grids in outlying areas. The gap between supply and demand is, therefore, widening at an alarming and unchecked rate.

Is this amazing situation the result

of bad planning, lack of coordination between interested parties or just selfish motivation on all sides? Unless some sort of coordinated modus vivendi is established, and immediately, will not the power requirements of New York City very soon exceed the available sources of supply? I would venture to presume that this predicament would occur probably next summer when power demands are at their peak. To say the future looks dark is not without considerable validity. Brownouts, dim‐outs and black‐outs could be frequent and wreak undo havoc to life in the city.

If this prognosis is true to the degree it would seem to be, I believe a statement by the Consolidated Edison people and the city fathers would be most appropriate to the readers.

The problem is of tremendous import ance to all New Yorkers, so let's have the facts. The situation will not resolve itself positively without support from all sides.

A power crisis of scandalous pro‐” portions seems to be evolving unless some preventive medicine is administered without further’ delay.

CHARLES A. DANA 3R. New York, Sept. 4, 1974

Why the Democrats Need A Strong National Structure

To the Editor:

Charles V. Hamilton, in his Sept. 7 letter, was absolutely correct when he said that what is at stake in the process of writing the Democratic party's first national charter is “how the Democratic.party structures itself in an attempt to avoid the internal divisiveness of 1968 and 1972.” However, he feels that the creation of a centralized national party structure would be impossible and unwise.

I believe, on the contrary, that the only way to avoid such divisions is precisely through a strong set of rules and standards which ensure the participation on an equal footing in all party affairs for all Democrats and abolish the present method of settling differences within the party by the arbitrary use of whatever power an individual or faction can acquire.

It is not the existence of differences of opinion and persuasion in the party that is responsible for this enervating and crippling war. It is when the cards are stacked too much in favor of one , side or another that there is disunity and lack of broad‐based support.

We should remember that the party has been moving steadily toward party with national standards ever since the 1968 convention, when the delegates voted to seat the Mississippi

Freedom party delegation because the Mississippi state party structure had violated what were then in‐written national Democratic standards with its exclusionary policies.

We must continue to move in this direction if we are to have any hope’ of a party that not only appeals to a broad range of voters but can cornmand their respect and support as well.

This means, I believe, that the char ter must specifically allow the national may to set criteria for state party,. participation; must contain a strong statement on the obligation for affirmative action by all party units; must stablish a judicial council to settle ntraparty disputes on the basis of accepted rules, and must mandate a nidterm convention every four years to provide a mechanism for true grass‐, loots participation and deliberation in may affairs and policy.

LIBBY ANN MOROFF

Larchnumt, N. Y., Sept. 7, 1974

The writer is chairman of the Town of damaroneck Democratic Committee and secretary of the National New Dernocratic Coalition.

We are continually improving the quality of our text archives. Please send feedback, error reports,
and suggestions to archive_feedback@nytimes.com.

A version of this archives appears in print on September 19, 1974, on Page 42 of the New York edition with the headline: Letters to the Editor. Order Reprints|Today's Paper|Subscribe